Posted on 08/26/2005 3:41:24 PM PDT by Crackingham
The Rev. Jerry Falwell said Thursday he supports basic civil rights for homosexuals, including equal opportunities to serve as public school teachers.
“I have always believed that all Americans should have basic human rights,” Falwell said. “I’ve made it clear that I don’t consider the right to fair housing or employment a conservative or liberal value. Those are American values.”
Falwell’s comments Thursday were similar to remarks he made earlier this month on the MSNBC television show, “The Situation.” Those comments earned him praise from the Human Rights Campaign, a nationally prominent group that works for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equal rights.
“Like most Americans, it seems the Reverend Falwell has reached the conclusion that everyone deserves basic rights,” said HRC’s President Joe Solmonese on the group’s Web site.
Solmonese thanked Falwell in an Aug. 9 letter.
“You spoke with passion for the civil rights of all Americans - regardless of if they’re gay or straight,” Solmonese wrote.
SNIP
Falwell said his support for basic rights for homosexuals does not mean he favors new laws which give homosexuals expanded freedoms.
“I don’t think homosexuals should be granted a special minority status,” he said.
Falwell said a public school teacher’s conduct on the job should be the determining factor in his or her employment status.
“As long as a person obeys the law and doesn’t recruit a student to a certain lifestyle, they shouldn’t be prevented from teaching,” Falwell said. “Every American should be allowed to work wherever he or she wishes as long as they obey the law.”
Falwell said that does not mean he is going to hire homosexuals for teaching positions at Liberty Christian Academy or Liberty University.
“Our doctrinal belief is that homosexuality is wrong,” he said. “We also believe heterosexual promiscuity is wrong. Those have been standards since the beginning.”
Falwell said faith-based, private institutions are held to a different standard than public-based institutions.
“We have a stricter code than public schools,” he said.
SO -I tend to consider motive and intent in addition to history, premise, basis and conclusion...
Pro-homosexual researchers consider a male adult engaging in sex with a male child to NOT be a homosexual act! LOL -thus the pro-homosexual 'research' misses the mark before even massaging its already PC corrupted data...
LOL if male on male is not a homosexual act is the abuse magically heterosexual -asexual, metrosexuial???/ -IF the abuse is not listed as objectively homosexual -it is listed subjectively by whatever the perpetrator and PC filterers may call it --- LOL -punster, give me a break with your 'scientific' subterfuge!!!!!! The attempt to normalize the abnormal with 'research' is inherently biased in premise let alone application ESPECIALLY when the perverts are doing the research.
I have no problem with social conservatives, unless they are the kind of social conservatives who don't want fair housing and employment opportunities for gay people. That I do have a problem with.
And some social conservatives are incredibly rigid about various topics. For instance, say the race came down to Guliani and Hillary. They won't vote for Guiliani because he's pro choice.
I think that's stupid. We will never, ever, have a candidate who agrees with our positions 100%. Not going to happen. It doesn't happen when choosing a spouse, for goodness sake.
So they threaten to stay home instead of vote because, of course, they aren't going to vote for Hillary. But that non-vote might as well be a vote for Hillary.
Hillary could behead a blind child on the steps of the US Senate and the leftists would still vote for her. It's our side that gets all high and mighty and threatens to withhold their vote because of one issue.
I understand full well how important the issue of abortion is and would love to see it overturned except in the cases of life of the mother, etc.
But national security is important too and without it, all the social conservativism in the world won't mean a damn thing, imo.
I understand and am sympathetic to your position but I don't agree. In most instances, sexual preference has nothing to do with employment. We would all be much better off, heterosexual and homosexual, if we would keep our sexual lives, private and separate from the workplace. That in my opinion, is the better solution.
It is legal to select one's tenants for ANY reason not specifically prohibited under the law. That is fact. And a fact that you are stubbornly ignorant of.
Well too bad, buddy boy. Them's the facts. Live with it. Deal with it.
As to whether a certain criteria is "fine" to use -- that would depend on the criteria, and is a matter of opinion. Which is why the renter gets to decide for himself. If he doesn't want to rent to lefthanded people, sure, what the hey. If she doesn't want to rent to good-looking people, hey, whatever floats her boat. If you disapprove of the criteria a person or business uses, you have the right to boycott, or conduct a campaign of social opprobrium -- but the renter has their right to rent to whom they see fit for whatever reason they see fit, aside from the specific demands of the law.
You seem to think that everything is illegal in this country unless the govt specifically passes a law allowing it. It's quite the opposite.
So you would support a mandating that companies have to hire gays, infringing on their RIGHTS to employ who they choose? Why are you imposing your morality on others in such a way? to use a favorite trope of the Left.
And what exceptions would you make? and how would you justify them? since you say that in some circumstances sexual pref DOES have something to do with employment?
And if you use "nothing to do with employment" as criteria for what the government should mandate, would you add Jorge's suggestions of height, weight, personal appearance, and smoking/nonsmoking, drinker/teetotaler, enshrine all those in the law, so a company is legally prohibited from using any of those criteria? Where would you draw the line?
What does it say?
Read your own post again.
Falwell believes homosexuality is wrong.
It sounds like you forgot the beginning of your sentence by the time you got to the end of it.
NOBODY is "ignorant" of the fact discrimination exists for ANY of these reasons...get a clue dude!
We ALL know it does.
This debate is about whether or not such discrimination is OK under the law.
Sexual preference should not even be an issue during hiring. Neither should race (though I don't equate the two). People should be chosen based on qualifications and abilities. The best person for the job, should get it.
I'm not ignorant about what you're talking about. I've told you again and again that your objections to the article were unfounded because the article did not directly address the issue that is the basis for your objections.
You enjoy being offended, even when it isn't warranted.
Again, simply put - the article was about the morality of homosexuality. It was not about the differences between the morality of monogamous and promiscuous heterosexual sex. So get over yourself, and take a chill pill. When I read an article about extramarital sex, I'll ping you, so you can voice your opinions legitimately for or against the position in that article.
Dr. Paul Cameron has never been expelled from the APA. He resigned in good standing November 7, 1982 with his resignation accepted November 29 of 1982. It's not possible for Dr. Paul Cameron to be expelled from the APA if he wasn't a member of the APA.
Regarding Judge Buchmeyer... here's the conclusion from Judge Buchmeyer: A Liar
Why did Judge Buchmeyer attack Dr. Cameron? We may never know for sure. Certainly, Buchmeyer appears highly sympathetic to the gay agenda. He is also hostile to traditional views about homosexuality. Beyond that, one can only speculate. Nevertheless, Buchmeyer seems — as with many gay activists — to have recognized the pointed danger to the homosexual movement of letting homosexuality be cast in a negative scientific light, all the more so when those scientific facts might be enshrined in the public record of a major legal trial. He apparently felt the danger was great enough to justify lying about Dr. Cameron. And even though Judge Buchmeyer was later repudiated by the full Circuit Court, his damning remarks have been quite successful at suppressing the scientific truth and harming Dr. Cameron's reputation in many other venues. Let us hope others will begin to see through Buchmeyer's charade.
When Dr. Paul Cameron reports on the health hazards of the homosexual lifestyle, his studies are supported by the CDC and the International Journal of Epidemiology.
You rely on the Boston Globe to write a balanced story on a conservative? The same Boston Globe that endorsed John Kerry and strongly endorsed Al Gore?
I would stop using Dr. Paul Cameron as a source for information if you could provide credible sources for the information you've stated here. Unfortunately, that information does not exist from credible sources.
If any of you see punster attacking Dr. Paul Cameron again please ping me.
Punster is indeed pushing the homosexual agenda by continuing to post lies created by homosexual activists.
He doesn't even debate the issues surrounding Dr. Paul Cameron. Instead he posts the same thing over and over no matter how many times we prove him wrong.
Scripter has defeated his phony arguments and dissembling time and time again, but he pops up with the same drivel as though he was never defeated.
That's his standard tactic - post, run, and hope he doesn't get caught posting the same lies again and again.
Indeed. But that's a difficult issue for me when we're talking about a job that involves children such as teaching. Should a homosexual teacher have a picture of their partner on their desk? Does their partner meet them at school? Does the teacher have a personal website where their homosexuality is mentioned?
Some children are confused about their sexuality when they are younger. The older they get the less confused they are. And for that reason, we need to be very careful about who influences out children.
Our children will never attend public school, but when they are old enough to understand the issues, we'll talk to them about homosexuals (confused heterosexuals), ex-gays, and whatever it takes to give our children whatever they need to help homosexuals out of the gay lifestyle.
And for that reason, we need to be very careful about who influences out children.
That should say: "And for that reason, we need to be very careful about who influences our children." Considering the subject, that's a terrible typo!
Jerry Falwell, IN THE ARTICLE, compared homosexuality and hetero "promiscuity".
I explained that that statement is misleading at best, and that promiscuity has nothing to do with the morality of the situation. It's a red herring, opening the point to confusion. Perhaps, as another poster suggested, Falwell would have rephrased with something more appropriate if he thought about it.
You just can't seem to wrap your little mind around that one, and you keep objecting to ..... well no one knows what exactly.
Very well. What role do you think the government should play, if any?
You need to address your criticisms about the vagueness of Falwell's article directly to him.
I think your position is immature and unrealistic. You probably think the same of mine. Leave it at that, and leave me alone.
Oh? You object to me commenting on it on FR, a place where people comment on news articles? LOL, get outta here bucko, you some kinda joker .......
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.